[RageWizard]

I accept the bad luck of going for it on 4th and goal then not making it. I also accept the decision to go for it later when its like 4 and 10 down by the red zone near the end of the game. If the steelers are going to do that, then why would they just run out the clock with running plays and no attempt to score with almost 2 minutes left in the game? If your gonna do that, you should have kicked a field goal in one of the other situations. The steelers quit on me plain and simple, that shows blatant unprofessional and unforgivable action. Even Miami, who hasn't won this year was still trying to score with less than 2 minutes left, and they were down by the same 21 points. I now have to hope that very bad things happen to the Steelers because they are proven quiters!

[outdrawed]

Originally Posted by RageWizard

I accept the bad luck of going for it on 4th and goal then not making it. I also accept the decision to go for it later when its like 4 and 10 down by the red zone near the end of the game. If the steelers are going to do that, then why would they just run out the clock with running plays and no attempt to score with almost 2 minutes left in the game? If your gonna do that, you should have kicked a field goal in one of the other situations. The steelers quit on me plain and simple, that shows blatant unprofessional and unforgivable action. Even Miami, who hasn't won this year was still trying to score with less than 2 minutes left, and they were down by the same 21 points. I now have to hope that very bad things happen to the Steelers because they are proven quiters!

lol

[MJFtheGenius]

or maybe they just suck

[namdeezy]

yeah it kinda pissed me off too. if they were gonna run the clock out and give up, might as well have kicked the FG so i could cover on the over =/. thats vegas for ya

[RageWizard]

Originally Posted by MJFtheGenius

or maybe they just suck

Yeah they do suck, but that's not the issue. Miami sucks too but they don't give up and stop trying. They could have kicked a field goal and given their kicker some who cares work just like they gave their running backs some who cares work at the end of the game. I don't mind losing the over bet if they at least try. That's why I'm not bitching about Randy Moss with the touchdown butter fingers that would have made the over for me. The Pats were just doing what there supposed to do, SCORE. The steelers were actually trying to keep from scoring, and that is unacceptable for an offense to do that.

[outdrawed]

"and that is unacceptable for an offense to do that."

This is so inane. I think it's hilarious you think Mike Tomlin gives a damn about your over bet.

[RageWizard]

Originally Posted by outdrawed

"and that is unacceptable for an offense to do that."

This is so inane. I think it's hilarious you think Mike Tomlin gives a damn about your over bet.

Of course he shouldn't care about my over bet, but wouldn't it be funny if they ended up the season tied with San Diego or Indy for the #2 seed in the playoffs and lose the tie with the total points scored against shared opponents category, sure its number 9 in the tie breaking list but it sure would be justice served as a rookie coach would learn a valuable lesson. I do admit that this is very unlikely. He is also sending a message to his team that its ok to give up when you know that your gonna lose.

[outdrawed]

yeah, I'm sure that's the message his team got. You're nuts. The guy was making sure his key players didn't get hurt in a game that was 100% over. I am pretty sure you're the only person who thinks what Pitt did was wrong.

[dwaechte]

I got to say, I'm fairly confident you wouldn't give a crap if you didn't have a bet on the game.

I think most can agree there's nothing wrong with what they did.

[outdrawed]

Originally Posted by dwaechte

I got to say, I'm fairly confident you wouldn't give a crap if you didn't have a bet on the game.

I think most can agree there's nothing wrong with what they did.

If by "wouldn't give a crap" you mean "wouldn't have even noticed it except for some loony pointing it out", I agree.

[RageWizard]

Well I guess we will have to agree to disagree. We will see how the team bounces back at home against another real team next week with the Jags. I expect the steelers to get it handed to them. If so we will see how not playing offense to score goes over in Pittsburgh.

[outdrawed]

Originally Posted by RageWizard

If so we will see how not playing offense to score goes over in Pittsburgh.

[RageWizard]

Originally Posted by dwaechte

I got to say, I'm fairly confident you wouldn't give a crap if you didn't have a bet on the game.

I think most can agree there's nothing wrong with what they did.

I don't know you're probably right, but I also flipped back when Indy played around against San Diego on a sure fire 29 yard field goal attempt that was missed. back then I got instant satisfaction and I didn't have any money invested. It all goes down in the giant excel spreadsheet that I keep so that I can try to predict how teams will act in certain situations.

[dwaechte]

Originally Posted by RageWizard

I don't know you're probably right, but I also flipped back when Indy played around against San Diego on a sure fire 29 yard field goal attempt that was missed. back then I got instant satisfaction and I didn't have any money invested. It all goes down in the giant excel spreadsheet that I keep so that I can try to predict how teams will act in certain situations.

I'm not sure how you can compare these two games. One was by most people's standards a blowout, while the Colts/Chargers game was coming right down to the wire.

[Sportsgirl]

Originally Posted by outdrawed

yeah, I'm sure that's the message his team got. You're nuts. The guy was making sure his key players didn't get hurt in a game that was 100% over. I am pretty sure you're the only person who thinks what Pitt did was wrong.

Anyone see the game a couple of years back when the Browns were playing the Bears? The Browns were up by 2 TDs with 22 seconds on the clock. The Bears came back and tied it up, scoring 2 TDs in 22 seconds and then, even though they lost the coin toss, they INTed on the first play from scrimmage and won the game.

If I were coaching Pittsburgh, I'd have had my players playing their guts out til the end.

However, since the game was "100%" over, it's curious that Brady, et al, played til the end.

[dwaechte]

Originally Posted by Sportsgirl

Anyone see the game a couple of years back when the Browns were playing the Bears? The Browns were up by 2 TDs with 22 seconds on the clock. The Bears came back and tied it up, scoring 2 TDs in 22 seconds and then, even though they lost the coin toss, they INTed on the first play from scrimmage and won the game.

If I were coaching Pittsburgh, I'd have had my players playing their guts out til the end.

However, since the game was "100%" over, it's curious that Brady, et al, played til the end.

Though it wasn't 100% over, there is a big difference between being down 2 TD's and being down 3 TD's.

I'm also going to guess(though correct me if I'm wrong) that those 2 TD's in 22 seconds if counting the time between the 1st and 2nd touchdowns. I'm guessing that the Bears did not take possession with 22 seconds left and score 2 TD's from that point on.

I'd also say that using what the other team is doing as a reference doesn't quite seem very smart. Brady and co. being out there should have no impact on the choice of Mike Tomlin, nor is there any significant meaning behind it. I doubt Belichick really thought he had a meaningfully less chance of winning by putting Cassel in rather than Brady.

Anyways, nothing wrong with having your players play it-out until the end in that instance, but I don't think there's anything wrong with packing it in either. This would require a huge statistical study, but I'm guessing the risk/reward between having a chance to win/risking injury is insignificant in that situation.

[RageWizard]

Originally Posted by dwaechte

I'm not sure how you can compare these two games. One was by most people's standards a blowout, while the Colts/Chargers game was coming right down to the wire.

The reason why I flipped out was because Indy had the ball inside the 10 with a little less than 2 minutes left in the game. They immediately go into the prevent offense mode and try to run down the clock so that San Diego wouldn't get the ball back with much time on the clock. Never mind that San Diego's offense had done nothing all game. The important numbers of ATS(IND -3.5) and O/U(48.5) were totally on the line. I said then if Indy holds out for a field goal attempt they should lose and they did, hence instant satisfaction. In both games the prevent offense prevented a possible change in either ATS or O/U.

[Sportsgirl]

Originally Posted by dwaechte

Though it wasn't 100% over, there is a big difference between being down 2 TD's and being down 3 TD's.

I'm also going to guess(though correct me if I'm wrong) that those 2 TD's in 22 seconds if counting the time between the 1st and 2nd touchdowns. I'm guessing that the Bears did not take possession with 22 seconds left and score 2 TD's from that point on.

I'd also say that using what the other team is doing as a reference doesn't quite seem very smart. Brady and co. being out there should have no impact on the choice of Mike Tomlin, nor is there any significant meaning behind it. I doubt Belichick really thought he had a meaningfully less chance of winning by putting Cassel in rather than Brady.

Anyways, nothing wrong with having your players play it-out until the end in that instance, but I don't think there's anything wrong with packing it in either. This would require a huge statistical study, but I'm guessing the risk/reward between having a chance to win/risking injury is insignificant in that situation.

Yes, the Bears did take possession with 22 seconds left, they scored quickly, did an on-sides kick and scored again. 14 points in 22 seconds which put the game into OT and the Bears eventually won.
However, 21 points is about 7 points different than 14, so I can see quitting. Actually, I can't ever see quitting.

I wasn't suggesting that the Patriots had any more/less chance of winning by having their first string take a seat, I was just saying that based on your analysis of why it was ok for the Steelers to quit, it would have been smart based on your thinking to take Brady & Co. out of the game, thus not risking injury to them when the game was about 100% over.
I would've taken some starters out of the Pats lineup at the start or at least mid-way through the 4th.

[outdrawed]

Originally Posted by Sportsgirl

Anyone see the game a couple of years back when the Browns were playing the Bears? The Browns were up by 2 TDs with 22 seconds on the clock. The Bears came back and tied it up, scoring 2 TDs in 22 seconds and then, even though they lost the coin toss, they INTed on the first play from scrimmage and won the game.

If I were coaching Pittsburgh, I'd have had my players playing their guts out til the end.

However, since the game was "100%" over, it's curious that Brady, et al, played til the end.

Pretty irrelevant evidence to back up your claim. You're comparing apples and hand grenades.

[outdrawed]

Originally Posted by RageWizard

The reason why I flipped out was because Indy had the ball inside the 10 with a little less than 2 minutes left in the game. They immediately go into the prevent offense mode and try to run down the clock so that San Diego wouldn't get the ball back with much time on the clock. Never mind that San Diego's offense had done nothing all game. The important numbers of ATS(IND -3.5) and O/U(48.5) were totally on the line. I said then if Indy holds out for a field goal attempt they should lose and they did, hence instant satisfaction. In both games the prevent offense prevented a possible change in either ATS or O/U.

Yeah, why go for the almost sure win when you can cover the spread for ragewizard! Tony Dungy is dumb!

[dwaechte]

Originally Posted by Sportsgirl

Yes, the Bears did take possession with 22 seconds left, they scored quickly, did an on-sides kick and scored again. 14 points in 22 seconds which put the game into OT and the Bears eventually won.
However, 21 points is about 7 points different than 14, so I can see quitting. Actually, I can't ever see quitting.

I wasn't suggesting that the Patriots had any more/less chance of winning by having their first string take a seat, I was just saying that based on your analysis of why it was ok for the Steelers to quit, it would have been smart based on your thinking to take Brady & Co. out of the game, thus not risking injury to them when the game was about 100% over.
I would've taken some starters out of the Pats lineup at the start or at least mid-way through the 4th.

Oops, my bad. Didn't remember this game off-hand so Iwas just assuming, which I definitely should've.

Anyways, you are right, I would've taken most of the starters out earlier, mainly just on that last drive that started with 3 minutes or so left.

[RageWizard]

Originally Posted by outdrawed

Yeah, why go for the almost sure win when you can cover the spread for ragewizard! Tony Dungy is dumb!

He lost didn't he? Why trust a kicker when your 5 yards away from the promise land? keep all options in play just don't edit them from your decision. He had 4 downs and he choose to let it ride on one kick. Yes it was a dumb decision he should have covered the spread even though as stated earlier, I did not have any money invested in the game.

[Sportsgirl]

Originally Posted by outdrawed

Pretty irrelevant evidence to back up your claim. You're comparing apples and hand grenades.

Why is scoring 14 points in 22 seconds to come back and win irrelevant? If it has happened, then it's possible, correct? So, with way more than 22 seconds left to score 21 points, why is this apples and hand grenades?

[outdrawed]

The "I would have taken Pats starters out" is totally useless assuming you haven't been living under a rock this season and have witnessed what the Pats have been doing. Belicheck has made it perfectly clear, right or wrong, that his starters are going to play, whether they're up 3 or 21. What he does and the decisions he makes are completely irrelevant to what other head coaches do.

[outdrawed]

Originally Posted by RageWizard

He lost didn't he? Why trust a kicker when your 5 yards away from the promise land? keep all options in play just don't edit them from your decision. He had 4 downs and he choose to let it ride on one kick. Yes it was a dumb decision he should have covered the spread even though as stated earlier, I did not have any money invested in the game.

Why trust a kicker that makes that FG 95% of the time? I have no idea. But yeah, let's go for the TD and hope we don't turn it over. The Colts made the right play. They were playing for the win and not to cover the spread because covering the spread doesn't mean a goddamn thing in the NFL.

[jackpot269]

Originally Posted by dwaechte

I'm not sure how you can compare these two games. One was by most people's standards a blowout, while the Colts/Chargers game was coming right down to the wire.

Colts/Chargers -in this game colts w/t time to score (not time running out SD, was going to get ball back)they got completly out of there game to play for a field goal this proves that playing for FG will get you beat more often than not. Nothing says gutless more than playing not to lose instead of playing TO WIN. Lost alot of respect, for a team i had a lot for!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

[outdrawed]

Originally Posted by Sportsgirl

Why is scoring 14 points in 22 seconds to come back and win irrelevant? If it has happened, then it's possible, correct? So, with way more than 22 seconds left to score 21 points, why is this apples and hand grenades?

I don't know the situation of your example, but the odds of Pitt scoring 21 points in under 2 minutes is microscopic. The risk/reward for the Steelers, in Tomlin's opinion, wasn't worth it. If it's a must-win game, maybe, but the Steelers have pretty much locked up the division, and most likely weren't going to grab the #2 seed.

[outdrawed]

Originally Posted by jackpot269

Colts/Chargers -in this game colts w/t time to score (not time running out SD, was going to get ball back)they got completly out of there game to play for a field goal this proves that playing for FG will get you beat more often than not. Nothing says gutless more than playing not to lose instead of playing TO WIN. Lost alot of respect, for a team i had a lot for!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

wtf. how could you possibly say they weren't playing to win. that's exactly what they were doing numbnuts

[RageWizard]

Originally Posted by outdrawed

Why trust a kicker that makes that FG 95% of the time? I have no idea. But yeah, let's go for the TD and hope we don't turn it over. The Colts made the right play. They were playing for the win and not to cover the spread because covering the spread doesn't mean a goddamn thing in the NFL.

I'm not saying that the field goal wasn't an option. What I am saying is don't piss away three downs waiting for a field goal attempt. If after the first two tries they don't get the touchdown then fine, kick the field goal and save a down just incase you mess up the snap. Its not an either/or situation its a have confidence in your offense and back it up with your kicker if you need it deal.

[outdrawed]

Originally Posted by RageWizard

I'm not saying that the field goal wasn't an option. What I am saying is don't piss away three downs waiting for a field goal attempt. If after the first two tries they don't get the touchdown then fine, kick the field goal and save a down just incase you mess up the snap. Its not an either/or situation its a have confidence in your offense and back it up with your kicker if you need it deal.

Holy god. I bet if they had run a play trying to get a TD and had turned it over you'd be bitching about how they took an unnecessary risk. You are so results oriented.

The Colts made the play that gave them the best chance to win. End of story. You are wrong if you disagree.

[Sportsgirl]

Originally Posted by outdrawed

I don't know the situation of your example, but the odds of Pitt scoring 21 points in under 2 minutes is microscopic. The risk/reward for the Steelers, in Tomlin's opinion, wasn't worth it. If it's a must-win game, maybe, but the Steelers have pretty much locked up the division, and most likely weren't going to grab the #2 seed.

Locked up the division? They have a one-game lead and the tied-breaker over the Browns. The Brown have the Bills, Bengals and 49ers with only the Bengals on the road. All three games are quite winable.
Steelers have Jax and home then Rams, Ravens on the road - not as winable a schedule as the Browns have, so I disagree that the division is a lock for Pitt.
As far as microscopic chances, no one on the Steeler squad got hurt in the first 57 minutes of play, making it about as microscopic a chance that someone would get hurt trying to win the game in the last 3 minutes.

[jackpot269]

Originally Posted by Sportsgirl

Why is scoring 14 points in 22 seconds to come back and win irrelevant? If it has happened, then it's possible, correct? So, with way more than 22 seconds left to score 21 points, why is this apples and hand grenades?

Some people don't understand the concept of playing all out until the final buzzer because packing it in is easier than putting it on the line when things not going your way. Its ease to play when your ahead!!!!

[Sportsgirl]

Originally Posted by outdrawed

The "I would have taken Pats starters out" is totally useless assuming you haven't been living under a rock this season and have witnessed what the Pats have been doing. Belicheck has made it perfectly clear, right or wrong, that his starters are going to play, whether they're up 3 or 21. What he does and the decisions he makes are completely irrelevant to what other head coaches do.

I know how Belichick runs his team and that he will play his starters to the bitter end. Smart? not in my opinion, but then again I'm not the head coach of a 13-0 team.

I was simply trying to make a counterpoint about taking the Steeler starters out and used the Patriots actions as an example.

[outdrawed]

Originally Posted by Sportsgirl

Locked up the division? They have a one-game lead and the tied-breaker over the Browns. The Brown have the Bills, Bengals and 49ers with only the Bengals on the road. All three games are quite winable.
Steelers have Jax and home then Rams, Ravens on the road - not as winable a schedule as the Browns have, so I disagree that the division is a lock for Pitt.
As far as microscopic chances, no one on the Steeler squad got hurt in the first 57 minutes of play, making it about as microscopic a chance that someone would get hurt trying to win the game in the last 3 minutes.

The Steelers are like 90% to win the division right now. So basically you want them playing for the <1% chance to increase their division chances from 90% to 99%.

[area51steve]

I think what we learned about the steelers this season is they're not that good of a team. Their rated as having the #1 defense in the league but thats only because of sloppy games at heinz field due to weather and the field itself. They lost games on the road to arizona, denver, new england, and WORST of all the NY jets. Even if the steelers make the playoffs, they won't beat the pats or colts.. Hell, they might not even be able the beat a team like the chargers.. I think jacksonville beats em straight up next week.